The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed former President Donald Trump’s initiative to limit mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections, dealing a significant setback to his efforts to alter election regulations.
The court’s Monday ruling permits states to maintain their longstanding practice of distributing mail-in ballots, dealing a blow to Trump’s plans to halt the process before Election Day and preventing last-minute legal challenges as voting commences in various states.
What Are Mail-In Votes?
Voting by mail operates by sending ballots to the residences of registered voters, who subsequently return them by mail before a specified deadline.
Eight states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington—along with the District of Columbia, most of which lean Democratic, permit all elections to be conducted entirely by mail.
Other states only authorize mail-in voting for smaller, localized elections.
While instances of forgery or duplicate voting do occur, they are exceedingly rare, accounting for just four out of every 10 million mailed votes, according to the Brookings Institution.
What Has Trump Said About Mail-In Voting?
Trump falsely attributed his 2020 presidential election loss to mail-in voting fraud, a claim he and his supporters have repeated. They also strongly opposed the temporary expansions to mail-in voting implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.
At the 2020 Republican National Convention, Trump described the expansion of mail-in voting as “the greatest scam in the history of politics.”
His efforts to advance the SAVE America Act, which proposes sweeping voting legislation, have stalled in the U.S. Senate. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives in February, it faces opposition due to concerns that it would disenfranchise millions of voters.
How Did Trump Target Mail-In Voting?
In March 2026, Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to seize control of mail-in voting by designing new envelopes equipped with special barcodes. These barcodes would theoretically allow the federal government to verify that ballots originate only from eligible voters.
Implementing this directive before the midterms would compel all states to adopt a standardized envelope design within a very compressed timeframe.
The order further mandated that states provide the U.S. Postal Service with lists of eligible voters prior to elections. Additionally, several federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, would have access to these voter lists.
The postal agency was also granted the authority to reject mailed ballots that failed to meet the new compliance standards or could not be linked to registered voters on the states’ lists.
What Happened to the Executive Order?
Democrats and activists challenged the executive order in multiple courts, leading to a series of fluctuating rulings between May and August.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an injunction against the rule in June, arguing that it likely violated the U.S. Constitution. She also noted that enforcing Trump’s executive order would have been impossible given how close the midterms were.
However, the conservative-majority Supreme Court overturned her ruling in late August in a temporary judgment.
At that time, the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutional legality of Trump’s move. Instead, it sided with the administration on procedural grounds after the administration argued that the Democrats had filed their lawsuit prematurely.
What Does the Latest Judgment Mean?
In the latest and final decision, the Supreme Court declined to lift Judge Talwani’s injunction.
In a brief written order that offered no further elaboration, the court indicated that the administration was likely to fail in its attempt to restrict mail-in voting before the midterms.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, voted with the majority against the administration, though he suggested he might support the policy at a later date. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority opinion.
Critics have long warned that restricting mail-in ballots could disenfranchise voters who rely heavily on this method to participate in elections.
Such restrictions could also disrupt the delivery of mailed votes, particularly since states such as Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have already begun mailing out midterm ballots.
